Colorado § 1-7-307 - Method of counting paper ballots.

§ 1-7-307. Method of counting paper ballots.

(1) In any county in which a hand count of ballots is used or becomes necessary, as expressly permitted or required by a provision of this title 1, during an initial tabulation, post-election audit, or recount, the designated election official shall count the ballots in the manner prescribed by this section.

(2) Each ballot must be counted by a team of four election judges. One judge must audibly read every mark on the ballot, while a separate judge observes this reading and assists in determining voter intent, when necessary. Two other election judges must each make entries on two separate accounting forms for each audibly read vote. The separate accounting forms must be compared at regular intervals, and any discrepancies noted on the separate forms must be accounted for until an accurate count of all ballots compared can be determined.

(3) The secretary of state may adopt rules in accordance with article 4 of title 24 as necessary to administer and enforce this section.

Source: L. 92: Entire article R&RE, p. 741, § 9, effective January 1, 1993. L. 93: (1) amended, p. 1421, § 75, effective July 1. L. 2026: Entire section R&RE, (HB 26-1113), ch. 267, p. 1507, § 48, effective June 1.

Editor's note: Prior to its repeal and reenactment in 2026, this section was similar to former § 1-7-307 as it existed prior to 1992.

Cross references: For the form of ballots, see §§ 1-5-407 and 1-7-304 (1); for improperly marked ballots, see § 1-7-309; for penalty for divulging information concerning the count prior to 7:00 p.m., see § 1-13-718.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

The intention of the voter, as expressed upon the face of his ballot, has always been regarded as the cardinal principle controlling the count. Under a system providing for balloting like the Australian, it is necessary that certain rules be prescribed to prevent confusion and secure uniformity; by this means the intention of the voter is to be ascertained. Young v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 460, 42 P. 666 (1895); Heiskell v. Landrum, 23 Colo. 65, 46 P. 120 (1896); Rhode v. Steinmetz, 25 Colo. 308, 55 P. 814 (1898); Nicholls v. Barrick, 27 Colo. 432, 62 P. 202 (1900); Wiley v. McDowell, 55 Colo. 236, 133 P. 757 (1913).

So neither the judges of the election nor the courts are authorized to go beyond what the voter has set down upon his ballot to ascertain his intention. Wiley v. McDowell, 55 Colo. 236, 133 P. 757 (1913).

But in order to designate his choice, a voter must use a cross mark as the law requires. Riley v. Trainor, 57 Colo. 155, 140 P. 469 (1914).

Hence, where no cross mark is used anywhere with reference to any of the candidates for the particular office in question, the ballots ought not to be counted. Riley v. Trainor, 57 Colo. 155, 140 P. 469 (1914).